Beta
×

Welcome to the Slashdot Beta site -- learn more here. Use the link in the footer or click here to return to the Classic version of Slashdot.

Thank you!

Before you choose to head back to the Classic look of the site, we'd appreciate it if you share your thoughts on the Beta; your feedback is what drives our ongoing development.

Beta is different and we value you taking the time to try it out. Please take a look at the changes we've made in Beta and  learn more about it. Thanks for reading, and for making the site better!

UK 'Virtual ID Card' Scheme Set For Launch

timothy posted about 2 years ago | from the bitte-ihre-telefon dept.

Cellphones 84

First time accepted submitter evrybodygonsurfin writes "The UK Government will announce details this month of a controversial national identity scheme which will allow people to use their mobile phones and social media profiles as official identification documents for accessing public services. People wishing to apply for services ranging from tax credits to fishing licences and passports will be asked to choose from a list of familiar online log-ins, including those they already use on social media sites, banks, and large retailers such as supermarkets, to prove their identity." I can't wait until carrying a telephone is mandatory. In the U.S. at least, how else will the government send you important messages?

Sorry! There are no comments related to the filter you selected.

Fail (1)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#41548745)

They will not "be asked."

It is optional to be stupid enough to log in with an ID that's related to a commercial service such as Facebook.

Unfunded mandate (1)

tepples (727027) | about 2 years ago | (#41548749)

I can't wait until carrying a telephone is mandatory.

How would people with low income, who until now have relied on payphones for the occasional call away from home, meet such an unfunded mandate?

Re:Unfunded mandate (1)

iamagloworm (816661) | about 2 years ago | (#41548761)

payphones are only still in place because of legislation. if the phone company was allowed to remove them, they would.

Re:Unfunded mandate (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#41549719)

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Q6vZnO4-F9I think this might explain 21st century payphones?

Re:Unfunded mandate (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#41551073)

payphones are only still in place because of legislation.

Yes, they are still physically in place. But they are slowly and deliberately committing suicide: the minimum call charge is now 60 pence, even to make a 10-second call to hail a lift.

That's about eight minutes of net salary for someone on minimum wage, just to make a quick phone call.

Re:Unfunded mandate (1)

houstonbofh (602064) | about 2 years ago | (#41548847)

I can't wait until carrying a telephone is mandatory.

How would people with low income, who until now have relied on payphones for the occasional call away from home, meet such an unfunded mandate?

Oh I don't know... http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tpAOwJvTOio [youtube.com]

Re:Unfunded mandate (1)

Santas L Helper (2028200) | about 2 years ago | (#41548849)

Silly, they are in the Uk. Somebody else will pay for their new iPhone, because it's not mandatory!

Re:Unfunded mandate (1)

91degrees (207121) | about 2 years ago | (#41548927)

It won't become mandatory. I think this was a sarcastic quip by the submitter or editor.

Re:Unfunded mandate (2)

CMYKjunkie (1594319) | about 2 years ago | (#41549031)

Well, right now a mailing address (aka "a residence") is a de facto standard way of reaching you for government communications, so is a place to live also an unfunded mandate??

Re:Unfunded mandate (4, Interesting)

beschra (1424727) | about 2 years ago | (#41549121)

Yes it is. And it makes life for the homeless even more difficult. One of the great services some nonprofits provide is mailing addresses for the homeless.

Re:Unfunded mandate (3, Insightful)

CMYKjunkie (1594319) | about 2 years ago | (#41549811)

I suppose that is my point: few criticize having a mailing address as burdensome in order to receive government services or communication, so "most" don't consider it a problem. With more and more people having mobile phone and smart phones, "a lot" to "many" don't consider it a burden and this will only increase over time to where, likely, the majority would not consider it odd or burdensome to have to have a telephone as a required/needed method of accessing a service.

Identify household vs. identify person (1)

tepples (727027) | about 2 years ago | (#41552215)

A street address identifies a household and by extension its head, not necessarily an individual person. I don't know about the UK, but in the US it's common for two parents and three kids to live under one mailing address, where only some members of the household have their own mobile phone numbers.

Re:Unfunded mandate (1)

loustic (1577303) | about 2 years ago | (#41549123)

They have to pitch a tent in front of that payphone !

Re:Unfunded mandate (1)

the eric conspiracy (20178) | about 2 years ago | (#41549159)

Why the gov will give you a tax credit for it of course.

What I'm worried about is when they start implanting them at birth.

Re:Unfunded mandate (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#41549185)

Obamaphone!

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tpAOwJvTOio

http://obamaphone.net/

Re:Unfunded mandate (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#41549267)

To carry a 'Telephone' ?

No thanks all I think about are these things: http://static.ddmcdn.com/gif/telephone-ch.jpg

Unless you actually mean a cell phone, now that would be practical.

Re:Unfunded mandate (1)

RaceProUK (1137575) | about 2 years ago | (#41557253)

Cellular telephone?

Re:Unfunded mandate (3, Informative)

Xest (935314) | about 2 years ago | (#41549293)

True story: I got on the train on my commute on the way home the other week as normal and this homeless guy got on and was pestering people, saying hello, being all friendly, then asking for money. I think he genuinely was homeless because he smelt homeless, though of course that's by no means a scientific measure of homelessness I'm sure.

Anyway, he paid his train fair no problem, got off the train and... pulled an iPhone out of his pocket and answered it. Granted it was only an iPhone 4, but here in the UK, it seems even the homeless have cellphones now.

Re:Unfunded mandate (2)

91degrees (207121) | about 2 years ago | (#41549337)

Having a mobile phone is quite common amongst the homeless. They're very cheap and extremely useful. They usually have access to somewhere they can charge them.

No idea how he had an iPhone though.

I've seen homeless with smartphones several times (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#41549429)

as well. And not necessarily 2008 type smartphones.

Could it be that they became homeless after losing job and house to the outrageous upkeep required by telcos these days?

Re:Unfunded mandate (2)

mcgrew (92797) | about 2 years ago | (#41551267)

He wasn't homeless, that was RMS, and he forgot his lunch money.

Seriously, though, some people are just stinking slobs. I had a neighbor I was sure was a homeless bum, until I found out he was my neighbor and had a decent job in construction (I journaled about hime a few years ago). I really doubt anybody with an iPhone is homeless, a homeless man would sell teh phone for food or (more likely) drugs.

BTW, your spell checker failed you -- it's "fare," not "fair" although some fares are fair and some fares are unfair. The busses going to the Illinois state fair's fare is unfair.

RMS iPhone? Heck no! 5 reasons why iPhone poops (1)

tepples (727027) | about 2 years ago | (#41552243)

pulled an iPhone out of his pocket

He wasn't homeless, that was RMS

Whatever RMS that might have been, it wasn't Richard M. Stallman. He wouldn't be caught dead carrying a defective-by-design iToy. See 5 reasons why iPhone poops [fsf.org] .

Re:Unfunded mandate (1)

Xest (935314) | about 2 years ago | (#41556341)

I've seen him a few times since around the town centre and honestly, I think he's probably actually a pick-pocket or something, he always walks up to everyone and anyone talking as if he knows them getting pretty close, tries to put their arm around them as if they're his best mate etc.

Re:Unfunded mandate (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#41549399)

How would people with low income, who until the mid 90s have relied on payphones for the occasional call away from home, meet such an unfunded mandate?

FTFY.

Re:Unfunded mandate (1)

tepples (727027) | about 2 years ago | (#41552261)

Even in the 2010s, some people are required to have no income because of child labor laws.

Re:Unfunded mandate (1)

RaceProUK (1137575) | about 2 years ago | (#41557273)

Pocket money isn't income? :)

Re:Unfunded mandate (1)

tepples (727027) | about 2 years ago | (#41558477)

I don't know where you grew up, but in households in my survey sample, it's usually not enough to pay for a cell phone along with the other things for which parents expect children to use their pocket money.

Re:Unfunded mandate (1)

RaceProUK (1137575) | about 2 years ago | (#41558525)

Since your humour detector is malfunctioning, I'll send round a service engineer within 24 hours.

Re:Unfunded mandate (1)

dragon-file (2241656) | about 2 years ago | (#41549809)

Well the have something like that going in Georgia. If you homeless and jobless, they get you a place to live and teach you a skill so you'll be a productive member of society. Once you go out on job interviews the state gets you a mobile phone, because the state believes its a requirement in this day and age.

Re:Unfunded mandate (1)

mcgrew (92797) | about 2 years ago | (#41549839)

How would people with low income, who until now have relied on payphones for the occasional call away from home, meet such an unfunded mandate?

Pay phones are quaint relics and there aren't many left. Poor folks in the US can get cheap cell phones and minutes for "free," paid for by your tax money. The program is called "safelink". [usatoday.com]

Obamaphone! (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#41550059)

Duh! Just have the government issue everybody a phone. Free of course, except for the rich. Everybody will be required to have one. Congress can subsidize Verizon or Cricket or whoever. Think of the jobs it will create! And the government can demand cheaper prices because they buy in bulk.

Re:Unfunded mandate (1)

jenningsthecat (1525947) | about 2 years ago | (#41550435)

I can't wait until carrying a telephone is mandatory.

How would people with low income, who until now have relied on payphones for the occasional call away from home, meet such an unfunded mandate?

If you don't believe some governments would be willing to further marginalize those already disenfranchised, please note that some states are making it more difficult to register to vote. [rollingstone.com]

Identity Theft? (2)

Agares (1890982) | about 2 years ago | (#41548755)

Correct me if I am wrong, but wouldn't this make identity theft easier in some cases?

Re:Identity Theft? (3, Funny)

houstonbofh (602064) | about 2 years ago | (#41548857)

Um, yes? And if a FaceBook profile is official documentation in England, they just got a LOT of new residents. Scary!

Re:Identity Theft? (1)

Agares (1890982) | about 2 years ago | (#41548919)

The first thing that came to my mind was that you could easily just use who evers name you wanted. How are they suppose to tell if that's who you really are or not? It just seems idiotic to me.

Re:Identity Theft? (2)

91degrees (207121) | about 2 years ago | (#41549047)

Don't think it works like that. The idea is that you tell the government that the facebook ID, or telephone, or whatever is yours, and then you can use the same facebook ID or telephone number each time you use the service. Not really different from providing an email address.

Re:Identity Theft? (1)

Agares (1890982) | about 2 years ago | (#41551801)

Ok I see what you are saying. The article made it sound more like a way to say you are so and so without actually needing to provide proof.

facebook at birth (2)

iamagloworm (816661) | about 2 years ago | (#41548769)

i can't wait until facebook is attached to birth certificates.

Re:facebook at birth (1)

Ferzerp (83619) | about 2 years ago | (#41548987)

Everything comes and goes. There was a time when the same comment could have been made about myspace.

Re:facebook at birth (1)

iamagloworm (816661) | about 2 years ago | (#41549099)

some things don't change once they take hold. postage stamps. passports. credit cards. social security numbers. things that identify individuals. the powers that be see it as necessary that you are uniquely identifiable online the same as in the real world. as for facebook fading like myspace? Facebook has a billion users. 1/6th of the worlds population. myspace at its peak had 100 million. that is what i would call post critical mass.

He's got a lot of web pages. (1)

Impy the Impiuos Imp (442658) | about 2 years ago | (#41549013)

"Boy, this Anon guy sure claims a lot of unemployment."

Set for lunch (1)

fustakrakich (1673220) | about 2 years ago | (#41549021)

So am I. What are we having?

Give me a "ham on five, hold the mayo..."

Fucking gits (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#41549057)

Too bad they can't use dental records.

Because everyone uses their real name on Facebook (3, Insightful)

multicoregeneral (2618207) | about 2 years ago | (#41549069)

Right? As long as everyone uses their real name on Facebook, this kind of system totally makes sense. As for me, I think I'll go to England, call myself Patrick Stuart, and apply for a passport. Hep hep, righto and such.

Re:Because everyone uses their real name on Facebo (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#41550403)

That's Pip , Pip old chap unless you really did mean Hep, hep because you own a sheep dog.

Re:Because everyone uses their real name on Facebo (1)

multicoregeneral (2618207) | about 2 years ago | (#41558607)

Blast!

Re:Because everyone uses their real name on Facebo (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#41550449)

As for me, I think I'll go to England, call myself Patrick Stuart, and apply for a passport. Hep hep, righto and such.

Patrick is a predominantly Irish name, and Stuart is predominantly Scottish. And we stopped saying "Hep Hep, righto" and such immediately after American scriptwriters of WWII films moved onto other genres.

The most troubling part about this is (1)

aNonnyMouseCowered (2693969) | about 2 years ago | (#41549139)

When the scheme spreads to copycat countries. From TFA:

"The Government hopes the identity system will form the basis of a universally-recognised online authentication process for commercial transactions on the Internet, boosting the economy and strengthening Britain's position as a leader in e-commerce."

Here's one thing I hope the UK doesn't export like deep-fried Mars bars.

New Government Message Plan (2)

ShopMgr (1639595) | about 2 years ago | (#41549161)

All Citizens will be able to receive Government Messages through built in channels in the TV's and through computer monitors. In addition, you will be able to pick up your phone address the government by saying "Hello Government" and a Government Watcher will answer back using your phone's microphone and camera. In case of an emergency, all you have to do is yell "help government" or "911 government" and someone will be available to help. After all, your government is Watching out for your safety and benefit. In addition, to make the interface with the Government less error prone, the Government is build a special vocabulary that the phones, computers and TV's will understand. It will be taught in schools, community colleges and online. Just search for "newspeak".

Re:New Government Message Plan (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#41550225)

You pathetic techies. I get Government messages without any external electronics at all!

Re:New Government Message Plan (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#41553997)

911 government? I think you'll find the emergency number in the UK is 000.

Re:New Government Message Plan (1)

RaceProUK (1137575) | about 2 years ago | (#41557285)

999

Or 112, which is the EU/EEA-wide equivalent.

Unsecure Big Brother (2)

Pyrotech7 (1825500) | about 2 years ago | (#41549287)

Ministers are anxious that the identity programme is not denounced as a “Big Brother” national ID card by the back door, which is why data will not be kept centrally by any government department.

How many of you believe that the government will keep no records? I think they will keep records or have access to them, in order to fulfill the function.

Once they have logged in correctly by computer or mobile phone, the site will send a message to the government agency authenticating that user’s identity.

Can you say Target for keyloggers, viruses, etc. Imagine what you could do with that information. Even if the information is sent via a third party site like social networks or whatever the universe of possible login information is limited.

A good idea, but poor execution? (3, Insightful)

loufoque (1400831) | about 2 years ago | (#41549459)

Sometimes I enjoy thinking of what I would do if I were at the head of a country to improve society, and providing a service that allows a person to prove their identity to another party over the Internet is one of those.

In real life, you can choose to show your ID card to someone to prove who you are, but there is no way to do something like this over the Internet, which might be useful to prove your age or nationality and access certain services.
Likewise, you could use a mechanism to prove you are who you claim to be when you send a message to someone (digital signing). Solutions exist, but you always need to rely on a reference authority; it being the state is the most official authority there is.

It seems however that in this case the execution is extremely poor, the possibilities limited, and security a problem. In particular, there is no need to put trust in private parties, it should be handled by the state. OpenID and similar technologies can already do the right thing without problems.

Re:A good idea, but poor execution? (1)

6031769 (829845) | about 2 years ago | (#41549953)

In real life, you can choose to show your ID card to someone to prove who you are, but there is no way to do something like this over the Internet.

Easy - there is a one-time enrollment whereby the government signs your PGP key having proven your identity by one of the other robust means already in operation. That sig can always be verified by anyone who needs to. Job done.

Re:A good idea, but poor execution? (1)

Hentes (2461350) | about 2 years ago | (#41550395)

That's exactly how it should be done, but just try to explain this to a politician. The problem with adopting security is that it's hard to understand so it would require people in power to trust professionals on matters they don't really get, an ability rare in leaders.

Re:A good idea, but poor execution? (1)

UpnAtom (551727) | about 2 years ago | (#41552843)

What's to stop data collection via "one of the other robust means already in operation"?

Secondly, authentication is only part of the problem. Whether to pay your taxes, order a new passport or whatever, you need to provide identifying information.

What's proposed has actually been thought through a lot more than by you.

Re:A good idea, but poor execution? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#41553667)

..and where do you store that key? and how do you ensure that key remains only in your possession - eg. when your technologically challenged parent decides he wants a new computer, how do you ensure he has something easy to understand the key is safely moved from one environment to the other....?

It's easy to be glib and say 'oh well all we need is RSA 5120 bit cipher public key certs with biometric reader 2FA. simples.' it's a lot harder to make that work across a massive demographic and technical literacy group.... I know as i'm involved in the project....

Re:A good idea, but poor execution? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#41550921)

In real life, you can choose to show your ID card to someone to prove who you are, but there is no way to do something like this over the Internet, which might be useful to prove your age or nationality and access certain services.
Likewise, you could use a mechanism to prove you are who you claim to be when you send a message to someone (digital signing). Solutions exist, but you always need to rely on a reference authority; it being the state is the most official authority there is.

You could setup a Public Key infrastructure.

As for the a reference authority, there is no reason why the state could not be it. In real life we (mostly) trust the signing authority of the state when it comes to Passports, ID and the like.

Excellent execution which needs more explaining (1)

UpnAtom (551727) | about 2 years ago | (#41552885)

"In particular, there is no need to put trust in private parties, it should be handled by the state."

Trusting the state is entirely the problem this proposal is avoiding.

Whichever third party I choose will have no other data on me, a track record for data protection and ethical behaviour, no ability to rewrite the law, no ability to coerce the media, no police, no secret police, no army etc etc.

You should read this historical document the scheme is based upon:
http://www.amberhawk.com/uploads/LSE_surv_2.pdf [amberhawk.com]

Re:Excellent execution which needs more explaining (1)

loufoque (1400831) | about 2 years ago | (#41553137)

Why would you need to give any data to anyone, other than proving your ID?
The system should be designed so that the "trust authority" cannot be able to track who you are giving your ID to.

Re:Excellent execution which needs more explaining (1)

UpnAtom (551727) | about 2 years ago | (#41553731)

"Why would you need to give any data to anyone, other than proving your ID?"

Well if you want a passport with your name on it, they need to know your name,
If you want to pay your taxes, rather than someone else's, they need to know which is your tax return?

"The system should be designed so that the "trust authority" cannot be able to track who you are giving your ID to."

True but that would depend on encrypting the data at the ID checkpoint as well as on the 3rd party's database, with no backdoors. Free choice of 3rd parties will hopefully take care of that.

Re:Excellent execution which needs more explaining (1)

loufoque (1400831) | about 2 years ago | (#41553815)

Well if you want a passport with your name on it, they need to know your name,
If you want to pay your taxes, rather than someone else's, they need to know which is your tax return?

Yes, so?
What data are you exactly giving away?
When you register for a passport, the government already adds you to a database. I don't see what new data you are giving away to anyone with the digital ID scheme, be it the government or a third party.

True but that would depend on encrypting the data at the ID checkpoint as well as on the 3rd party's database, with no backdoors.

I don't know what you're talking about.
BrowserID for example guarantees that your ID provider cannot track who you're giving the ID to.

Re:Excellent execution which needs more explaining (1)

UpnAtom (551727) | about 2 years ago | (#41558661)

"Yes, so?
What data are you exactly giving away?
When you register for a passport, the government already adds you to a database. I don't see what new data you are giving away to anyone with the digital ID scheme, be it the government or a third party."

In particular, you would be giving away the data that all these disparate records in different databases hold data on you.

I'm certainly not happy about the passport database, nor the fact they need to scan my passport even when I go through the free travel zone of the EEC. But one battle at a time.

"I don't know what you're talking about.
BrowserID for example guarantees that your ID provider cannot track who you're giving the ID to."

Presumably it's up to your ISP, browser and websites to implement it properly.

In the same way, hopefully 3rd parties will be competing for data privacy and will take up similar protocols.

One step closer. (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#41549629)

This is just taken us one more step closer and shows more proof.

Coalition govt is equally as bad as the Labours (1)

fufufang (2603203) | about 2 years ago | (#41549829)

Labours launched some random identity card program, now coalition government is launching a virtual ID card program. I don't know which is worse.

Re:Coalition govt is equally as bad as the Labours (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#41550079)

Identity card that would've been mandatory to hold your person at all times in public, all tied in to a government owned unified database.

or

Virtual Identity card that's an optional proff of identification housed by a company of your choosing.

tbh, both are great/shit ideas depending on how much trust you place in your government/company.

Given that we have little control over who the government is I think this method is superior.

This is roughly 1000x better (2)

UpnAtom (551727) | about 2 years ago | (#41552787)

In fact as a former regional co-ordinator of NO2ID, I can point out that NO2ID were consulted and have approved this scheme.

We accept that there is a demand by the public to be able to easily authenticate/identify themselves for the purposes of govt services, many of which can be delivered online. Success of this scheme will deny Big Brother govts the opportunity to masquerade a future surveillance scheme as a benefit to the public.

Secondly, the scheme complies with the Nine Principles of Data Privacy: http://www.amberhawk.com/uploads/LSE_surv_2.pdf [amberhawk.com]

As Britain was the first Western country to be subject to a Big Brother attempt, we have a lot of expertise to share. This historical document will hopefully form the basis of future constitutional protection around the world.

Notably, all data is held by a trusted third party. No govt can access that data without your third party disclosing it.

Compare this with forced interviews, forced fingerprinting, forced iris scanning, forced enrollment on a govt database (National Identity Register) designed to bring together your medical records, ANPR records, bank/phone/internet records, DNA and police records together into one automatic personal dossier on every person in the country. This was Labour's totalitarian scheme.

Whilst the Coalition's Communications Bill is more of the same, this third-party identification/authentication scheme is to be lauded and copied around the world.

Re:This is roughly 1000x better (1)

BasilBrush (643681) | about 2 years ago | (#41553835)

In fact as a former regional co-ordinator of NO2ID, I can point out that NO2ID were consulted and have approved this scheme.

Proof positive that NO2ID were a front of the Tory party all along.

Notably, all data is held by a trusted third party.

... with the dumb ass idea that private enterprise is to be trusted where government is not.

Re:This is roughly 1000x better (1)

UpnAtom (551727) | about 2 years ago | (#41558595)

"Proof positive that NO2ID were a front of the Tory party all along."

Ahahaha, yet run by a left winger (Phil Booth). The threat posed by the party you presumably support was so extreme that party politics went out the window. It was both a glorious and terrified resistance movement.

"... with the dumb ass idea that private enterprise is to be trusted where government is not."

Depends which Govt really, doesn't it. The one that invents evidence to invade Iraq, locks up people for reading out the names of the Iraqi dead at the Cenotaph, passes two laws which can abolish Parliament with Parliament debating it probably isn't a good one to trust.

But we get to choose which third-party we trust. I just hope we get more of a choice than MS, Facebook and Google.

Re:This is roughly 1000x better (1)

BasilBrush (643681) | about 2 years ago | (#41559105)

the party you presumably support

If you're guessing any of the big 3, you're wrong. However...

Depends which Govt really, doesn't it. The one that invents evidence to invade Iraq, locks up people for reading out the names of the Iraqi dead at the Cenotaph, passes two laws which can abolish Parliament with Parliament debating it probably isn't a good one to trust.

...just confirms my comment about NO2ID being a Tory front.

Re:This is roughly 1000x better (1)

UpnAtom (551727) | about 2 years ago | (#41565055)

Yes because anyone concerned about totalitarianism is a Tory, got it.

Re:This is roughly 1000x better (1)

BasilBrush (643681) | about 2 years ago | (#41567125)

Are you a Tory?

Re:This is roughly 1000x better (1)

UpnAtom (551727) | about 2 years ago | (#41570797)

Nope, but you're Labour.

I sympathise with the LibDems mostly, but I think all political parties are cults so refuse to join them. I'm probably going to campaign for an independent mayor against the LibDem candidate.

Re:This is roughly 1000x better (1)

BasilBrush (643681) | about 2 years ago | (#41574981)

Nope, but you're Labour.

Clearly you missed the fact that that was already ruled out.

Re:This is roughly 1000x better (1)

UpnAtom (551727) | about 2 years ago | (#41575739)

Sorry, I've met enough defenders of Labour's totalitarianism to know they're ALL Labour.

Re:This is roughly 1000x better (1)

BasilBrush (643681) | about 2 years ago | (#41575909)

You're projecting your own dishonesty about your politics. I knew all along you were a Tory.

Re:Coalition govt is equally as bad as the Labours (1)

BasilBrush (643681) | about 2 years ago | (#41553801)

The conservatives opposed Labours National ID card scheme on principle and due to IT cost concerns, and they scrapped it as soon as they got power. And now they launch their own National ID scheme based on mobile phones. Obviously they are far worse. Hypocrites of the first order.

Government Sponsored Man-in-the-Middle Attack. (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#41550903)

Am I understanding this correctly--that the UK wants folks to log into sites in real-time to validate their identity whilst they watch? If so, is it not obvious that they would be gleaning login information, and the information from the site you're visiting as well? What about people who use the same password for multiple sites?

Re:Government Sponsored Man-in-the-Middle Attack. (2)

UpnAtom (551727) | about 2 years ago | (#41552803)

You don't understand it. You give your data to a third party of your choice. The govt has no access to it.

Identity Theft (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#41551401)

In light of this proposal, stealing another person's phone brings a whole new variation to the concept of "identity theft".

This is outrageous (1)

A bsd fool (2667567) | about 2 years ago | (#41552557)

I *am* Corbin Dallas.

Not really accurate... (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#41556887)

Disclaimer: I work for one of the third party companies

It's not that it will let you use social media accounts AS an identification document.
Rather, you will be able to link a social media account TO an account at one of the third party providers AFTER your identity has been verified using a regular document (and depending on the requested security level, a face-to-face check).

In regards to your privacy, I can perhaps make you all feel a bit better; the structure of the systems being developed is such that after your account is completed, all your personal data is locked away and encrypted to such an extend that even with root access to the box it's running WE can't even see your details. They can only be unlocked using the customer's signing (which is at minimum two-factor).

Check for New Comments
Slashdot Login

Need an Account?

Forgot your password?